Momma’s on a rant!

If you’ve ever wondered where I get my ability to tear people a new asshole when I’m worked up, well, I get it from my mother. She doesn’t normally do political posts on her blog, but she got worked up enough today to let loose with both barrels:

I am so tired of hearing ‘what is wrong with my opponent and the opposite party’.  I want to hear that the leaders of this country are aware that people are losing their homes, that not every citizen was able to get a degree in a job that is left in this country, That milk cost as much as gasoline, that people are getting sicker and even dying due to lack of descent health care.  I have sat through let us make fuel out of corn and then hearing that converting it is expensive.  Not to mention what do we eat when this is an accepted method for fuel.  How long will crops like beans, peas, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. be grown when corn is the ‘cash crop’?

When do we stop hearing about the noise the wind generators make and the dangers they may present when we need all the alternative energy sources we can find.  What happened to using flowing water to generate electricity.  Surely every river, stream, or source of water has not dried up in this nation.

We seem to be the target of ‘make them run scared and you can lead them like sheep’.  Well I’m not a sheep!  I want my right to privacy, my right to make a living and pay my bills, to raise my children to respect other people rights and property.  To lead this country you have to have people who will take a chance, change an accepted way, yet still look back on the ideas that built this country. 

That’s my mom and I couldn’t be prouder.

25 thoughts on “Momma’s on a rant!

  1. RON PAUL ‘08!!

    or 2012!!

    Uh-oh! The Paul-bots are still alive and well, I see.

    That being said, although I disagree with Rep. Paul on some issues (Can you say science vs. superstition?), I do have a great deal of respect for the man. He is the ONLY federal legislator that I know of who has consistently kept his legislative activities within the bounds of the US Constitution- no small feat indeed in this day and age.

    Unfortunately, it’s pretty obvious that the American Herd Animal has been brainwashed beyond the point of no return- and I will continue to get the government that they deserve until the whole mess finally falls down around our ears.

  2. continue to get the government that they deserve until the whole mess finally falls down around our ears.

    We have already seen the tip of the iceberg I’m afraid. But that’s ok, I kind of like a Socialist government also….

    We are at a critical time in our energy industry. Coal has to play some sort of part. People always talk about using our domestic resources. It is estimated that there is enough Coal in Wyoming region to last us another 250 years. However, we can not burn it because the treehuggers won’t let us!

    It’s alright, we can just build more wind towers and the gas generation to back it up. It will only raise everyone’s electric bill by a few thousand dollars a year.

    The sheep have also seemed to jumped on Climate Change. I am not fully convinced that the climate is changing. If it is I do not think that Humans are the main driver in that change. Some people just need a cause to be happy.

  3. Haha good one.

    My point is this: Some scientists have found evidence that the climate is changing, others have found evidence to refute that claim.

    The way I see it is that people have blown the one side way out of proportion and most people are to lazy to go find out the truth. The just follow blindly because someone told them it is happening.

    Then you have Gore, 100% renewable in 10 years you have to F’ing kidding me. To believe that is even possible tells me that a person is extremely naive or smoking cow pies.

  4. From what I’ve seen the evidence in support of global warming being impacted by our habits, such as burning fossil fuels, is substantially greater than the evidence against it. You suggest in your reply, Kit, that the balance between the Yays and Nays on the topic is somewhat even and that’s not really the case.

    Above and beyond the issue of whether or not fossil fuels contribute to Global Warming is the fact that fossil fuels definitely pollute the environment and that provides further reason to develop other less-polluting forms of energy creation. Not only will it reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but it’ll reduce the amount of pollution in our drinking water, air, and soil all of which contribute to health problems.

    We may always be dependent to some degree on fossil fuel usage, but there are clear and distinct advantages to minimizing that dependence in as many areas as possible.

  5. All I am saying is that the people that are ‘in the know’, the people that do this for a living, are not as sure as the general population makes the issue out to be.

    Did people stop the hysteria and listen to what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist had to say? No.

    I am all for the search of alternative energy. It would be great if we can change our generation plants to use renewable sources. However, everyone is trying to push us into these technologies much too soon. The Lieberman-Warner bill that did not pass would have required new coal plants to use technologies that are just now being developed/realized! This bill would have added a $55 per ton tax on carbon. That would have effectively added just less than $200 a month for the average consumer in my rural state. With hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people already having problems paying their electric bill each month are we ready to implement such a tax?

    Another large issue we face with these renewable energy technologies is the ability to transmit the energy to where it is needed. Just looked are a new 230 kV wood pole line. $210,000 per mile plus easements. Who is suppose to pay for that? Even if we had the money there is not enough labor force to build the required line in 10 years.

    So yes, I want to see renewable energy. But I am worried about the cost and ability to do it at this time. Carbon Sequestration is coming, but it is not ready yet.

  6. Not sure what you are trying to argue with the IPCC link.

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperaturessince the mid-20th century is very likely due to theobserved increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
    It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent

    ie its definately happening, and its probably us.

  7. Sorry about the ipcc link, I did not paste the correct link…

    that is the one I wanted.. didn’t pay attention to what got in there last time. That is what I get for trying to watch some predebate tv!!

    if you follow the last update link on that site you will find

    Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

  8. One of the problems I have with the argument for human impact on global warming/climate change is the obvious fervor of the “fundamentalist environmentalists”. They sound so much like every other fundy, be they Xtian or Islam, and their BELIEF is based on incomplete or faulty data. None of their prediction models account for water vapor because it is too large and too unpredictable. If you try to predict climate or weather with a missing parameter that is so strong an influence, how can you say it is anywhere near accurate? That humans are crapping in their own yards, I will agree. Our pollution may very well strongly affect future generations, but then that is one of the problems. How many people think about others? We are all too busy thinking about ourselves. Pity!  downer

  9. Kit, seems to be you defeated your own argument by including the IPCC link.

    Leguru you say that none of the models account for water vapor, but you provide nothing to back that claim up. With a simple Google search I managed to track down the following article at The American Association for the Advancement of Science:

    Water Vapor Feedback in Climate Models
    Robert D. Cess

    General circulation models (GCMs) are highly sophisticated computer tools for modeling climate change, and they incorporate a large number of physical processes and variables. One of the most important challenges is to properly account for water vapor (clouds and humidity) in climate warming. In his Perspective, Cess discusses results reported in the same issue by Soden et al. in which water vapor feedback effects are tested by studying moistening trends in the upper troposphere. Satellite observations of atmospheric water vapor are found to agree well with moisture predictions generated by one of the key GCMs, showing that these feedback effects are being properly handled in the model, which eliminates a major potential source of uncertainty.

    Alas the full article is unavailable, but it does show that there are models that are taking into account water vapor. Modeling the effect of water vapor, however, is quite difficult and there are some indications that the IPCC report may have overestimated the effect of CO2 on global warming.

    The folks at the Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News Climate Science blog have a number of interesting entries worth looking into, but their Main Conclusions summary probably says it best:

    Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

    You’ll not that they’re not saying that climate change in general, and global warming in particular, aren’t happening, but that there are some problems with the data that should be taken into account when forming policy decisions.

    I have no doubts that there’s a healthy debate on how accurate the predictions are, but I also have no doubts that the consensus appears to be that global warming is real and driven at least in part by human activity. The climatologists aren’t sitting on their asses relying on the same old models, they’re always working on them to try and improve the accuracy of the predictions they make and that includes taking into account water vapor.

  10. I’m not arguing that global climate changes are not happening, nor that human activity does not have a part in it. I am arguing that human activity is NOT the only or even the primary cause of such changes, but like the article you quoted, human activity is a part of the cause. That stated, what part of human activity can be changed so that our influence is minimal on any negative changes in that climate? Have you tried to change the belief of a T.B.®? What success have we had in changing the greed of those in Wall Street? Is there a rational reduction of activity goal that has any chance of succeeding?

  11. Regardless of the cause, given that we know it’s happening shouldn’t we do something about it? We know the climate is changing to our detriment. Whether or not we caused it with coal, or there’s a mythical god up there farting CO2 over Santa Claus’s house in the North Pole making the weather stink, there are plausible solutions for actively engaging in climate change that we should consider participating in before our options become reduced by environmental impact.

    When the house is burning, who cares which appliance caused the fire?

  12. Leguru, those are fair questions and my cynical side says that by the time enough people are convinced there’s a problem it’ll be too late. Personally I think we’re in for some major hurt and while I’m not so pessimistic to think that it’ll be the end of the human race I do think it’s going to be the end of a lot of other species and a significant reduction in the human race.

    Because it’s easier to be in denial than to fix the problem it’ll get a lot worse before we really get serious about making it better.

    MM, the problem with that approach is that said appliance may continue to contribute to the fire if you don’t figure out which one it is and put an end to it. If the appliance turns out to be, say, increased volcanic activity which we have no control over, then we’re fucked, but if it’s too many cars on the road then that’s something we can work towards reducing.

  13. The next thing to consider is whether or not the change in climate will be detrimental, over-all. You know why that large island in the North Atlantic is named “Greenland”? When the Norse first settled there, it was “green”. The Sahara used to support lush plant life. Maybe, in the total scheme of things, this is just another natural shift in climate that will actually benefit most species. Just sayin’.

  14. Leguru, if the changes in climate were at the same pace as previous changes I’d be inclined to agree with that point of view, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

  15. Ha- you don’t know the half of it.  One of the ways Anglo Saxon kings were converted was by the missionaries using the Bible to justify taxation.

    It cut both ways- one Saxon King was a convertee, but next to his altar to the White Christ, he had his altar to the old Gods, because you didn’t want to get on the wrong side of them. (Your average Saxon Christian wasn’t really that much into Christ ‘meek and mild’- they prefered to hear about the bloke who killed loads of people with just an ass’s jawbone).

  16. I tend to believe the Sun is the root cause of any change in our climate. I do not think Man Made CO2 is a large contributor to the grand total. In fact Dr. Tim Patterson from the Carleton University in Ottawa has even stepped up to point out the following:

    “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years… On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

    I will give you that Climate Change may be happening, but I still don’t think Humans have much to do with it.

  17. I suppose you can believe whatever you want, Kit. I’m going to go with the consensus on the issue which is that man is having an impact. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who share your point of view which will help to ensure nothing significant is done until the situation gets much worse. I’ll probably be dead before it gets really bad, but I feel for my daughter and her children who may live long enough to really be impacted by it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.